Miranda warning Essay
The essence and the major issues of the Miranda Warning case.
What is the essence of the Miranda warning case? In what way do TV show participants should follow the Miranda Warning? What the Supreme Court decision rightful?
Being “Mirandized” means that a suspect is read a list of his rights, which basically resemble the next: the understanding that anything the persons says may be used against him in Court, his right to keep silence, the right for an attorney and others.
Miranda warning Essay
Introduction: Nowadays there have been a lot of new television projects dealing with the confession in different crimes made by ordinary citizens. People may consider these programs to be “conscience-relievers”, nevertheless the participants have still committed crimes and this fact must not be forgotten by any means. These kinds of programs have caused a lot of negative reaction from the side of the law enforcements.This is especially due to the fact that even after a confession people are not arrested because they have not been “Mirandized” before their speech. Being “Mirandized” means that a suspect is read a list of his rights, which basically resemble the next: the understanding that anything the persons says may be used against him in Court, his right to keep silence, the right for an attorney and others. An only after this lists of right the suspect chooses whether to speak or not to speak at all. According to this list those criminals that admit or confess of a crime without being read their rights remain free and do not take responsibility for what they have done.
I personally feel a little confused by this warning. This is primary due to the understanding that some cases are too “heavy” to throw them out just because the criminals have not been read their rights. In these cases I consider it to be appropriate to make Miranda work “automatically”” if there is any evidence supporting the criminals statements. Almost every single phenomenon concerning law enforcements has exceptions. This is why I believe that the Miranda warning should be automatically applied to those television participants who confess of dangerous crimes, because it is impossible to say whether they really did it or if they just wanted to be on TV. It is not just to through out cases just for the reason that the right has not been read and I think that the field of using the Miranda warning needs some revision.To show this on practice it is not necessary to go into the depth of crime history but just to turn to the case that is widely known - Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona, which happened in 1963. Mr. Miranda was accused and then confessed of kidnapping and raping a young, mentally disabled woman. The fact that Ernesto Miranda was not told that he could use a lawyer or silence the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: Court decided that the confession of Mr. Miranda must not be considered to be an evidence of the crime. After this case Miranda Warning saw the world, nevertheless Mr. Ernesto Miranda was lately arrested because certain evidence was found. This means that the Miranda warning does really need revision because while staying free Mr. Miranda could have killed some other people. So the decision is obvious – either TV confession must be cancelled which will make criminals come to police and not on TV or the Miranda warning must by applied automatically in certain types of cases. All the details and exceptions need to be discussed in the Supreme Court.It is important to note that a confession on TV is usually made to make people feel sorry for the criminal. And a crime is not something to be sorry of but a fact to take responsibility for. And if certain changes need to be made then why not to carry them out?
1. The Miranda Warning - The U.S. Constitution Online
2. The Miranda Warning details
3. The Mystery of Miranda